German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation vessels

Kieninger ends with an overview of the different German fermentation systems in use at the time.

It’s pretty clear where his preferences lie. Again there’s not a single mention of beer flavour in his discussion.

“Finally, I wish to discuss the types of fermentation vessels which may be used in breweries in the future. There are three main combinations of fermentation and maturation vessels in use at present.

(a) The green beer may be fermented in cylindro-conical vessels and then matured in horizontal tanks. This method has the disadvantage that the yeast must be removed from the lager tank manually and is likely to be avoided in future developments.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Even in the most old-fashioned method he describes the primary fermentation is performed in conicals. He only really traditional bit is lagering in horizontal tanks. His dislike of them seems purely based on having to clean them out by hand.

This sounds even worse:

“(b) A second possibility is to use cylindro-conical vessels for main fermentation and then to pump the beer into vertical outdoor tanks, using a plate cooler to lower the temperature.

The removal of yeast from the outdoor tank is also difficult, especially if the vessel has a diameter greater than 6 m. The vessels are cheap, however, and as a result they are found in many breweries, usually with centrifuges before the plate cooler.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

It’s huge tanks like these that make some modern breweries look like a chemical works. Or some post-modernist building where all the guts are on the outside.

Finally, Kieninger’s favourite:

“(c) The problems of handling yeast in large tanks has led to a consideration of fermentation and maturation in a single vessel. One brewery in Italy uses this so-called 'unitank method". This brewery is not using flotation but filters the wort before fermentation by use of a kteselguhr filter. The primary fermentation is completed after 7 days at a temperature of 9°C, 7 days are needed to reduce the content of the a-acetolactate formed and after a further 7 days stabilization at 0°C the beer is filtered and bottled. The average yeast concentration before filtration is 4 million cells per ml compared to a concentration of only 0.5 million cells per ml for the classical procedure of stabilization in horizontal cylindrical vessels. Since one brew occupies a vessel for 3 weeks one must ask if the financial burden which arises from the high costs of cylindro-conical tanks compared to separate fermentation and lagering vessels is justified. The fact that removal of yeast from the cylindro-conical tanks is much easier than from horizontal or vertical lager tanks with a flat bottom is a major reason for the method being adopted.

Extensive trials in our Institute showed that fermentation at temperatures of 15-18°C altered the original character of the lager beer, even after addition of Krausen during secondary fermentation and only at temperatures of 12°C and below was no distinct effect found. We think it advisable, therefore, that the temperature of primary fermentation should not exceed 9°C during the first 3 days but during the last stages of primary fermentation the temperatures may rise to 14-I6°C to reduce the content of diketones and precursors. After this time the yeast is removed and the beer is carbonated and stabilized at 0°C in the same vessel. The procedure described requires 3 weeks production time which can be carried out on a weekly programme. A better foam stability has been found with longer maturation time.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

I believe the unitank system is what industrial Lager breweries use today. And I think the temperature of primary fermentation isn’t kept below 9º C, but is more like the 15-18°C than damages the character of Lager. Oh look, there’s a sort of mention of beer flavour. At just three weeks from mash to bottling, there’s not really any lagering going on.

Kieninger does have reservations about conicals:

“Summarizing these points the question arises whether the cylindro-conical tank can really be the universal vessel for beer production in the future. It is certainly possible to separate the cold break by filling the vessels at such a speed that the sludge sediments before the yeast has overcome its 8 hour lag-phase. This allows sufficient separation of cold sludge for the fermentative activity of the yeast not to be affected. Collection of carbon dioxide and removal of yeast is possible without manual work and there are no problems with stabilization and carbonation. The only disadvantage is the larger volume required for the foam head when using higher temperatures. Our experience has shown that a vessel with a height of 25 m needs 5-6 m for the foam head and this means that a vessel, depending on the temperature of fermentation, may be filled only to two-thirds of its volume. It seems that in the future, therefore, there will be a trend in many continental breweries to ferment and mature the beer in one vessel by a batch procedure.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

Though the ease of removing yeast and collecting CO2 outweigh not being able to fill the conicals to the top when fermenting Lager warmer than was traditional.

His prediction about single-vessel fermentation systems did indeed become true. In fact I think that’s also the way most new small breweries operate in the US.

And that's us done. At least with this article.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – Treatment of beer in cellars of public houses

This is the chapter I’ve been leading up to. A very detailed account of how to – and how not to – handle cask beer in the pub.

It’s one of the most useful, and fascinating, chapters I’ve ever come across. I’m not joking. It’s answered one question that’s been knocking around in my head for several decades. But that bit will come in a later post.

This is the curse of the cask brewer:

“Every brewer should realise that his duties do not end within the walls of the brewery. A brewer should take every opportunity of visiting his firm's licensed houses, in order to be fully acquainted with the conditions under which his beers are managed in the cellars. By so doing, Providing he keeps careful record of the details applying to each place, he will be able to arrange his own cellar temperatures to better advantage. He will have obtained a fair idea of the temperatures to which beers will be subjected after they have left the brewery. It is quite possible, too, with his more expert and intimate knowledge of beer, that he may be able to give the tenant or manager some beneficial advice. At the same time, he can point out any defects in the cellar which require attention. He will undoubtedly find some tenants rather averse from any change in their usual methods of cellar management. The fact that a certain routine has given good results for a long period is no reason for not pointing out the possible ill results of certain actions which entail risks. With the knowledge thus acquired from various cellars, a brewer should be able to deal with any trouble which might develop with his beers in cellar.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 249.

The brewer of bottled or keg beer has far less to worry about when he waves the fruit of his labour goodbye. Broken packaging or roasting in the sun for a few days aside, there’s not a huge amount of harm that can befall such beer. It should survive even sloppy handling in drinkable condition. MNo such luck with cask.

Which means a cask brewer has to take an interest in – and possibly worry about – what goes on in a pub cellar. And in the days when most pubs were tied, breweries did have a say in cellar design. Especially with new pubs.

And cellars and their design are where we start.

“Cellars
In chapter 2 we mentioned that it was necessary for architects who designed breweries to have considerable knowledge of brewing. We are now going to express the opinion that it is of equal importance that those who plan out licensed houses should have sufficient knowledge of the management of beer to enable them fully to appreciate the importance of the cellar. The cellar is really the heart of any place where the trade depends upon the sale of beer. It is throwing away money to construct a palatial building in order to attract trade, if the cellar is so ill designed that it is impossible to sell beer in anything approaching a satisfactory condition. The house will inevitably become a ‘white elephant' on account of its bad reputation so far as beer is concerned. Unfortunately, the brewer is too often blamed for trouble with the beers, when all the time it is due to circumstances over which he has little or no control. We do not say that these poor conditions apply so much to cellars in town houses as to those in the country. Nevertheless, possibly owing to space being valuable in towns, we have often found cellars in town houses ridiculously small in proportion to the trade which the house should do. This defect is a serious one, because it entails frequent opening of the cellar doors, with destruction of its normal temperature. These changes in temperature, especially during extreme summer heat or winter cold, are liable to have serious effects upon the beers. Besides, lack of space never gives the beers a chance to settle down. Thick and unpalatable drinks become the rule and not the exception. With good reason, therefore, we demand a cellar which is large enough. If the cellar is found to be too spacious, part of it can always be screened off. But if it is too small, it is difficult to enlarge.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 249 - 250.

“Thick and unpalatable drinks” – sounds like Craft Keg or that unfined nonsense. Then again, isn’t the whole point of these things that they look different? So fashion victims can easily spot them. Who would be interested in unfined beer if it looked just as clear in the glass as fined beer?

I’d never thought about the bad effects of too small a cellar. I guess for deliveries cellar doors are open a fair time. But does it really have such an impact on the temperature inside?

It seems out in the countryside cellars were even worse than the town:

“As regards cellars in country houses, the less said about some of them the better. We have come across many which are quite unfit for the storage of beer. In some instances, they are simply a draughty passage between two compartments in the house; in others, a lean-to shed on one side of the building—even on the south side of it, so that at midday during the summer it resembles an oven. In many cases no attempt has been made to sink the cellar below ordinary floor level. Such sinking is essential if any degree of uniformity in temperature is to be obtained. Very often, when the licensed house is some distance from the brewery, deliveries of beer are only made fortnightly. In such cases, part only of the consignment can be cellared. The remainder finds its way into any vacant shed or stable, where it is left to take its chance, and is lost sight of until required. It is then transferred to the cellar, almost at the last moment before it has to be drawn on. During the winter, the beer becomes thoroughly chilled and takes a considerable time to recover. On the other hand, the authors have been urgently summoned during the heat of summer for assistance, to find the cask standing on end in some terribly hot outhouse, the heads bulging and straining under heavy internal pressure of gases, and threatening at any moment to burst. With room available for a larger cellar, as is generally the case in the country, there can be no excuse for such conditions. If the cellar is too small and cannot be enlarged, however, more frequent delivery of beer should be insisted upon.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 250.

They all sound like pretty dreadful places to store beer. Let alone cask beer. 19h-century Bass, of course, could handle being exposed to the elements. Lesser beers, I guess not. That paragraph certainly makes me look at the quaint country pubs of old in a slightly different light. The beer must have often been dreadful, especially in the summer. Sounds like a recipe for vinegar.

This all much more complicated than you might imagine. You had to use the right materials when building a cellar.

“Apart from the position and the size of a cellar, planning and construction are of the utmost importance. Adequate ventilation is essential, but it must not involve draughts. Draughts are very detrimental to the condition and often the fining of beers. On that account, we do not favour open cellar flaps made of iron grating, but prefer wooden ones, even if it means curtailment of a certain amount of light. But as underground cellars generally need artificial light in any case, the defect is a minor one. For cleanliness, we strongly advise a floor covered with asphalt, with adequate fall to a drain or sump. The fall ensures that any beer which may be spilled runs away immediately, thus obviating an accumulation of beer which rapidly turns acid.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

What’s the difference between ventilation but not draught? Whether you’re sitting in its direct path, would be my personal definition. Why was a draught bad for fining?

Café Belgique in Amsterdam has an earth floor, I seem to recall. Probably the worst possible option for cask.

Oh right, I see Jeffery agrees with me:

“Where a sump is necessary in the absence of a drain, it should be cleaned out every day without fail. From the point of view of an even temperature an earth floor seems more suitable for beers than any type of more up-to-date construction, but has the disadvantage of getting foul and acid, especially during the summer, and on that account is undesirable.

Walls and roof faced with white glazed tiles form the ideal so far as cleanliness is concerned. If tiles are found too expensive, bricks may be substituted provided they have a hard smooth surface which will not form a receptacle for mould spores. The bricks can be limewashed periodically, and the cellar so kept sweet and clean.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

Tiles are always the best option, hygiene-wise. I’d have our whole house tiled, walls, floors, ceilings, if Dolores would let me. We’d never have to decorate again. Not that I do much. Usually it’s Dolores who gets out the paintbrush when I’ve gadded off somewhere.

One final word of warning:

“A great mistake is sometimes made in providing a roof which is too low. Every man needs sufficient height in which to move if he is to do his work properly. A manager or tenant will not be encouraged to visit his cellar more often than he is absolutely obliged to, if he finds he has limited space in any direction.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 251.

The author should see the one in Café Belgique. The deepest parts aren’t tall enough to stand up in. And the shallow bits aren’t much more than a metre. And it’s only about 15 square metres in area.

Temperatures and stillage next. You’ll have to wait a while for the really fun bits.

German brewing in the 1970’s – fermentation (part two)

What’s the best fermentation system? Who hasn’t asked themselves that while soaking in the bath or bobbing along to work on the bus, some grey winters day?

You’re in luck, because Kieninger is going to tell us. Or at least give us his opinion. He worked at Weihenstephan, so he must be right, musn’t he?

“Table XII also shows the most simple and effective method for the fermentation and maturation of lager beers of high quality in the light of modern knowledge. Primary fermentation is carried out in closed vessels, so that it is possible to collect the carbon dioxide and any required temperature may be applied. After reduction of diacetyl the green beer is cooled by plate coolers to a temperature of 0°C and after remaining at this temperature for 2-3 weeks for stabilization it is carbonated and filtered. The only analytical controls required are diacetyl and carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide content may be controlled by in-line instrumentation.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Lager in just 28 days. I’m not sure he’s convinced me about that. I’m sure it’s a cost-efficient way of brewing. But what about the flavour of the beer? That doesn’t get a look in. Notice that it’s not even taken into consideration.

The best Lagers I’ve had I mostly knew were open-fermented, lagered for months rather than weeks and were naturally carbonated.

I’m going to repeat that table, because it’s a while since the last post in this series:

TABLE XII. Comparison of Fermentation and Maturation Systems.
Method	Primary fermentation	Transfer	Lagering
Classical	7 days at 9°C	Beer with 3-5% residual extract cooled to 4°C	35-50 days with temperature reducing from 3° to 0°C
Using Kräusen	7 days at 9º-10°C	Beer with 2% residual extract cooled to 4°C. 10-12% Krausen with 8% residual extract added	14-28 days with temperature reducing from 4° to 0°C
Under pressure at high temperature (Champagne Wheat Beer)	3 days at 16°C or 4 days at 14°C under pressure	Beer with 2% residual extract 2.0 bar pressure cooled to 0°C	7-14 days stabilization at 0°C
Modern development	7 days at 12-14°C with CO2 collection	Attenuated beer carbonated and cooled to 0°C	14-21 days stabilisation at 0°C and final carbonation

This next bit is interesting, even though it slightly baffles me:

“Fig. 2 illustrates the relationship between the time necessary to reduce diacetyl content to a value of 0.1 mg/litre and maturation temperature. At a temperature of 30°C, 48 hours are sufficient to reduce the diacetyl content to <0.1 mg/litre without addition of Kräusen but, at 8.5°C, eighteen days are necessary to reduce the diacetyl content to the same value. The addition of Kräusen also allows a reduction of diacetyl at higher temperatures, but additional 2-acetolactate is formed during secondary fermentation, so that a new time-consuming reduction phase is necessary.”

Fig. 2. Behaviour of 2-acetolactate (as diacetyl) during different maturation conditions following primary fermentation at 8.5°C. Curve A = maturation at 8.5°C with kräusen, B = 85°C without kräusen, C = 15°C with kräusen, D = 20°C with kräusen, E = 30°C with kräusen, F = 30°C without kräusen.
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 76.

Oh, I get it. You can break down diacetyl at a higher temperature if you kräusen, the fermentation of the kräusen creates more diacetyl. And that also needs to be broken down. Sounds like you need to add more kräusen then. Only joking. But what is he recommending ? I’m confused.

“The development of isoamyl alcohol during primary fermentation at different temperatures with and without pressure is shown in Fig. 3. Isoamyl alcohol content increases

Fig. 3. Iso-amyl alcohol content during primary fermentation in relation to temperature and pressure. Curve A = fermentation at 20ºC, B = 20°C with pressure, C = 16°C, D= 16°C with pressure, E = 12°C. F = 12°C with pressure, G = classical fermentation at 8-S°C.

with increasing temperature but the use of pressure results in a decrease of about 5 % at any given temperature.”
Journal of the Institute of Brewing, Volume 83, Issue 1, March-April 1977, page 77.

This one has totally lost me. Be glad for an explanation by any brewing technicians out there.

Just looked up isoamyl alcohol on this wonderful new thing they have called the internet. A higher alcohol . . . . that tastes like banana. I get why Kieninger is so interested in it, being a brewer of Weissbier.

Still one more bit to go. Where fermentation systems are compared.

Cask beer in the 1950’s – finings

This is such fun. And just wait until we get to the next chapter which deals with handling cask beer in the pub. That’s a real eye-opener.

Let’s get started.

“Fining
The composition of finings has already been described, also reason why they are used. Their aim is to effect as rapidly as possible the condition of clarity which, provided the beer has been properly brewed, would doubtless have resulted spontaneously in the long run. It remains now to deal with the quantity of finings which should be used, and the best time at which to use it.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 246.

So they are a shortcut to clarity, really. Stock Pale Ales in the 19th century weren’t usually fined but expected to drop crystal clear during the long maturation process. I wish some modern brewers would take note that unfined doesn’t mean that the beer has to look like mud in the glass.

This is an interesting point:

“It is hardly necessary to point out that the addition of finings, besides increasing the sludge and bottoms, takes something out of the beer and decreases the palate-fullness. Wherever possible, especially in the case of stock ales and beers for bottling, the use of finings should be dispensed with. Where necessary, as is always the case with running ales, the least possible quantity should be used which is compatible with satisfactory results. One pint of well-made finings per barrel should be the maximum quantity used for running beers, one and a half pints for pale ales, where the finings are called upon to do more work on account of the large amount of hops present in the cask. Even these quantities may be reduced where the finings are made from the best Saigon leaf. This leaf undoubtedly has very strong fining powers. Curiously enough, these finings are rather deceptive in appearance. They seem to be weak and unduly thin. The appearance is deceptive, however, and a proof that apparent strength as revealed by viscosity is not always reliable.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So maybe the anti-finings brigade do have a point. Finings thin a beer out. Still doesn’t mean I want to drink a pint of sludge, though.

The large amount of hops in Pale Ales would be the dry hops. Though surely a running Bitter would also be dry hopped. He seems to be assuming that running beers were always Mild, which wasn’t usually dry hopped.

Now the tricky question or when to add finings:

“The question of when most suitably to add finings is a debatable one. At one time opinion was in favour of fining in the houses, but with the quicker deliveries that are now possible with modern transport, the major objection to fining in the brewery is removed. If finings are added just prior to despatch from the brewery, the beer will fine satisfactorily within a few hours of its receipt at the cellar of the house. When fining in the houses was the rule, it was sometimes found that better fining was achieved when both beers and finings had been delivered together and stored in the same cellar not less than 24 hours previous to the beer being fined down. Both beers and finings had become acclimatized to the surrounding temperatures, and the action of the finings was more regular and efficient than was the case when the beers were fined down at the brewery. Few breweries now fine in the houses, however.

The advantage of fining at the brewery lies in the knowledge that the job has been done properly. Also, a certain quantity of beer is saved per cask, which in some breweries means quite a large barrelage per annum. Against this might be placed the poor results which could be obtained due to exposure of the fined beer to many variations in temperature in the course of delivery.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, page 247.

So fining had first mostly been done in pubs, but had shifted to the brewery. I’m surprised at fining only taking a few hours after delivery. I’d have thought 24 hours was more like it. Though I know that the Nottingham breweries’ beer used to drop bright pretty quickly.

I can understand why brewers wanted to do the fining themselves. They had more control over what went on and removed a possibility of the landlord cocking it up. You’ll have noticed that the author clearly doesn’t trust publicans to handle beer properly.

There were times when fining needed to be done earlier, even before racking:

“Sometimes one hears of fining taking place in the racking back. It is a practice of which we  are not in favour unless the fermentation has been very sluggish, and the emission of yeast unsatisfactory. Of course, if the beer is yeast-bitten, and it is essential to avoid the introduction to the cask of a large amount of undesirable sludge and sediment, part fining in the racking square is not only advisable, but necessary.”
"Brewing Theory and Practice" by E. J. Jeffery, 1956, pages 247 - 248.

Only to be done when the fermentation hadn’t gone well and the beer still contained large amounts of yeast.

Next time it gets really exciting when we learn what went on in the pub.

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975

You know what to expect by now. Numbers. Lots and lots of numbers and bugger all words. I’m saving up the words for people who pay me for them.

Let’s start with the raw numbers before I waste too many words on you.

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (lbs)
Year	Production (barrels)	Malt	Corn and corn products	Rice	Wheat	Barley	Sorghum grains and sorghum products	Soybeans and soybean prods.	sugar and syrups
1955	89,791,154	2,627,010,323	913,693,701	375,111,692	5,423,575	357,920	—	1,601,610	108,604,325
1956	90,697,911	2,650,652,911	871,955,351	424,954,817	3,679,525	10,000	38,700	1,181,776	109,404,864
1957	89,881,935	2,617,645,452	944,065,897	354,691,869	2,220,600	—	1,300	1,056,631	101,768,983
1958	89,010,812	2,577,543,842	954,414,553	336,354,124	1,971,900	495,000	649,000	1,143,739	97,209,348
1959	90,973,768	2,613,176,446	1,012,356,240	330,960,223	1,414,500	—	173,700	1,309,782	93,312,135
1960	94,547,867	2,697,409,939	1,058,989,007	351,812,764	1,426,000	—	45,000	1,419,098	98,684,775
1961	93,496,452	2,657,456,124	1,038,015,118	345,488,387	1,297,800	739	15,200	1,402,881	102,447,112
1962	96,417,543	2,715,251,671	1,075,306,335	337,923,616	1,206,000	—	60,340	1,526,045	121,331,649
1963	97,961,421	2,745,427,657	1,159,394,969	295,876,926	605,800	9,600	5,300	1,545,061	115,964,649
1964	103,017,915	2,885,121,764	1,265,020,486	273,811,073	575,600	—	3,218,132	1,618,204	106,371,666
1965	108,015,217	3,015,521,588	1,325,891,671	311,082,178	514,500	—	3,321,415	1,639,433	97,422,892
1966	109,736,341	3,071,600,745	1,316,086,216	334,865,023	481,365	—	—	1,618,239	98,792,117
1967	116,564,350	3,270,980,966	1,375,625,956	379,100,298	403,850	—	12,169,766	1,656,090	101,579,961
1968	117,523,511	3,309,955,668	1,302,371,115	394,510,574	332,600	1,600	41,452,889	1,761,403	120,504,135
1969	122,657,497	3,432,352,177	1,334,548,982	413,854,584	278,800	65,800	43,538,850	1,732,345	142,879,875
1970	134,653,881	3,721,405,457	1,448,830,267	506,065,825	229,200	2,055,860	15,027,460	1,736,287	202,416,492
1971	134,091,661	3,678,737,262	1,463,110,324	501,336,677	189,375	93,580	999,050	2,211,808	208,959,625
1972	140,326,680	3,853,687,171	1,518,935,036	536,974,228	158,800	79,560	778,270	1,839,278	199,423,919
1973	143,013,573	3,898,435,622	1,467,331,844	558,777,431	124,165	87,830	—	1,844,900	267,265,264
1974	153,053,027	4,172,512,952	1,518,206,361	593,190,144	—	52,944	—	1,578,736	310,933,052
1975	157,870,017	4,224,756,179	1,618,954,486	379,381,639	—	1,791,400	—	1,522,377	393,453,003
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Obviously they’re much easier to understand expressed as percentages:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (%)
Year	Malt	Corn and corn products	Rice	Wheat	Barley	Sorghum grains and sorghum products	Soybeans and soybean prods.	sugar and syrups
1955	65.16%	22.66%	9.30%	0.13%	0.01%		0.04%	2.69%
1956	65.26%	21.47%	10.46%	0.09%	0.00025%	0.00095%	0.03%	2.69%
1957	65.09%	23.48%	8.82%	0.06%		0.00003%	0.03%	2.53%
1958	64.93%	24.04%	8.47%	0.05%	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%	2.45%
1959	64.48%	24.98%	8.17%	0.03%		0.00%	0.03%	2.30%
1960	64.07%	25.16%	8.36%	0.03%		0.00%	0.03%	2.34%
1961	64.09%	25.04%	8.33%	0.03%	0.00002%	0.00%	0.03%	2.47%
1962	63.85%	25.29%	7.95%	0.03%		0.00%	0.04%	2.85%
1963	63.57%	26.85%	6.85%	0.01%	0.00022%	0.00%	0.04%	2.69%
1964	63.61%	27.89%	6.04%	0.01%		0.07%	0.04%	2.35%
1965	63.41%	27.88%	6.54%	0.01%		0.07%	0.03%	2.05%
1966	63.68%	27.29%	6.94%	0.01%			0.03%	2.05%
1967	63.62%	26.76%	7.37%	0.01%		0.24%	0.03%	1.98%
1968	64.01%	25.19%	7.63%	0.01%	0.00003%	0.80%	0.03%	2.33%
1969	63.93%	24.86%	7.71%	0.01%	0.00123%	0.81%	0.03%	2.66%
1970	63.10%	24.57%	8.58%	0.004%	0.03%	0.25%	0.03%	3.43%
1971	62.82%	24.99%	8.56%	0.003%	0.00160%	0.02%	0.04%	3.57%
1972	63.05%	24.85%	8.79%	0.003%	0.00130%	0.01%	0.03%	3.26%
1973	62.94%	23.69%	9.02%	0.002%	0.00142%		0.03%	4.31%
1974	63.25%	23.02%	8.99%		0.00080%		0.02%	4.71%
1975	63.82%	24.46%	5.73%		0.03%		0.02%	5.94%
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Malt usage has bottomed out at around 63%. While corn rose to almost 28%, before falling back to 24%, just a little higher than in 1955. Rice is all over the place and shows no real trend. Sorghum, soya and unmalted wheat and barley are only used in tiny amounts. Sugar hovered around 2% then shot up to almost 6% in 1975.

Now let’s look at those figures in pounds per barrel:

Materials used in brewing in the USA 1955 - 1975 (lbs/brl.)
Year	Malt	Corn and corn products	Rice	Wheat	Barley	Sorghum grains and sorghum products	Soybeans and soybean prods.	sugar and syrups	other materials	total
1955	29.3	10.2	4.2	0.06	0.004	—	0.02	1.2	—	44.98
1956	29.2	9.6	4.7	0.04	0.0001	0.0004	0.01	1.2	—	44.75
1957	29.1	10.5	3.9	0.02	—	—	0.01	1.1	—	44.63
1958	29	10.7	3.8	0.02	0.006	0.007	0.01	1.1	—	44.64
1959	28.7	11.1	3.6	0.02	—	0.002	0.01	1	—	44.43
1960	28.5	11.2	3.7	0.02	—	0.0005	0.02	1	—	44.44
1961	28.4	11.1	3.7	0.01	—	0.0002	0.02	1.1	—	44.33
1962	28.2	11.2	3.5	0.01	—	0.0006	0.02	1.3	—	44.23
1963	28	11.8	3	0.006	0.0001	0.00005	0.02	1.2	0.0002	44.03
1964	28	12.3	2.7	0.006	—	0.03	0.02	1	0.005	44.06
1965	27.9	12.3	2.9	0.005	—	0.03	0.02	0.9	0.001	44.06
1966	27.5	12	3.1	0.004	—	—	0.01	0.9	0.0000	43.51
1967	28.1	11.8	3.3	0.003	—	0.1	0.01	0.9	—	44.21
1968	28.2	11.1	3.4	0.003	0.00001	0.35	0.01	1	—	44.06
1969	28	10.9	3.4	0.002	0.00005	0.35	0.01	1.2	0.05	43.91
1970	27.6	10.8	3.8	0.002	0.02	0.11	0.01	1.5	0.05	43.89
1971	27.4	10.9	3.7	0.001	0.0007	0.007	0.02	1.6	—	43.63
1972	27.5	10.8	3.8	0.001	0.0006	0.006	0.01	1.4	—	43.52
1973	27.3	10.3	3.9	0.0008	0.0006	—	0.01	1.9	—	43.41
1974	27.2	9.9	3.9	—	0.0003	—	0.01	2	—	43.01
1975	26.8	10.3	3.7	—	0.01	—	0.01	2.5	—	43.32
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

There’s a small decline in the amount of fermentable materials per barrel, presumably reflecting a small decline in average gravity. Something like this:

Year	estimated average OG
1955	1046.20
1956	1045.96
1957	1045.83
1958	1045.85
1959	1045.63
1960	1045.64
1961	1045.53
1962	1045.42
1963	1045.21
1964	1045.25
1965	1045.24
1966	1044.69
1967	1045.41
1968	1045.25
1969	1045.10
1970	1045.08
1971	1044.81
1972	1044.69
1973	1044.58
1974	1044.17
1975	1044.49

Hops next:

Hop usage in the USA 1955 - 1975
Year	hops lbs	hops lbs./ bbl.
1955	33,736,717	0.38
1956	32,938,442	0.36
1957	31,732,968	0.35
1958	30,419,008	0.34
1959	29,642,566	0.33
1960	30,825,243	0.33
1961	29,473,204	0.32
1962	29,896,445	0.31
1963	30,343,524	0.31
1964	30,446,822	0.30
1965	31,562,258	0.29
1966	31,054,401	0.28
1967	30,744,728	0.26
1968	29,231,847	0.25
1969	28,719,722	0.23
1970	38,195,191	0.23
1971	32,135,040	0.24
1972	33,467,886	0.24
1973	34,523,123	0.24
1974	36,777,733	0.24
1975	35,532,533	0.21
Source:
Various editions of the "The Brewers Almanac"

Despite beer output almost doubling in this period, the quantity of hops only slightly increased. Which translates to an almost halving of the pounds per barrel. 0.21 pounds is, er, eff all.

Let’s continue with a comparison with the UK. Raw numbers first:

Brewing materials in the UK 1955 - 1975 (lbs)
year	malt	unmalted corn	rice, maize, etc	sugar	total malt & adjuncts	bulk barrels
1955	967,178,464	5,214,272	53,552,800	171,276,672	1,197,222,208	24,324,623
1956	966,576,240	4,484,256	54,525,856	172,956,896	1,198,543,248	24,187,096
1957	993,716,416	1,549,408	59,607,968	175,243,376	1,230,117,168	24,839,755
1958	967,960,000	1,200,304	60,868,304	171,135,664	1,201,164,272	24,129,462
1959	995,160,768	896,784	66,080,672	175,728,224	1,237,866,448	25,023,044
1960	1,053,568,320	1,007,328	64,204,224	184,894,416	1,303,674,288	26,313,796
1961	1,108,484,944	945,840	65,499,392	195,594,448	1,370,524,624	27,600,860
1962	1,116,088,176	1,197,280	68,180,560	196,868,672	1,382,334,688	27,736,049
1963	1,122,290,288	1,557,472	72,167,088	196,114,128	1,392,128,976	27,942,561
1964	1,186,297,056	2,896,432	79,713,648	205,509,472	1,474,416,608	29,485,128
1965	1,189,365,072	6,875,904	82,308,576	203,116,592	1,481,666,144	29,579,855
1966	1,196,996,640	14,854,672	86,181,872	207,517,632	1,505,550,816	30,178,056
1967	1,211,628,992	16,429,504	86,881,200	213,954,160	1,528,893,856	30,751,420
1968	1,194,570,496	13,599,488	83,823,376	212,535,120	1,504,528,480	30,763,106
1969	1,272,590,480	19,633,488	86,823,968	238,948,304	1,617,996,240	32,211,837
1970	1,284,913,504	26,237,232	86,399,152	247,252,880	1,644,802,768	32,940,567
1971	1,334,859,232	30,776,480	84,139,440	271,794,656	1,721,569,920	34,360,000
1972	1,355,179,280	71,114,512	50,622,544	286,563,424	1,763,479,760	34,969,310
1973	1,378,987,008	69,291,264	45,776,752	282,339,344	1,776,394,480	35,338,345
1974	1,491,601,328	69,873,328	57,895,600	309,028,608	1,928,398,752	37,893,753
1975	1,513,065,568	83,982,864	72,000,768	297,172,064	1,966,221,264	38,238,657
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.
1970 - 1975 bulk barrelsStatistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 7

But the percentages are more use:

Brewing materials in the UK 1955 - 1975 (%)
year	malt	unmalted corn	rice, maize, etc	sugar	lbs per Imp. barrel	lbs per US barrel
1955	80.79%	0.44%	4.47%	14.31%	49.2	35.3
1956	80.65%	0.37%	4.55%	14.43%	49.6	35.5
1957	80.78%	0.13%	4.85%	14.25%	49.5	35.5
1958	80.59%	0.10%	5.07%	14.25%	49.8	35.7
1959	80.39%	0.07%	5.34%	14.20%	49.5	35.5
1960	80.82%	0.08%	4.92%	14.18%	49.5	35.5
1961	80.88%	0.07%	4.78%	14.27%	49.7	35.6
1962	80.74%	0.09%	4.93%	14.24%	49.8	35.7
1963	80.62%	0.11%	5.18%	14.09%	49.8	35.7
1964	80.46%	0.20%	5.41%	13.94%	50.0	35.9
1965	80.27%	0.46%	5.56%	13.71%	50.1	35.9
1966	79.51%	0.99%	5.72%	13.78%	49.9	35.8
1967	79.25%	1.07%	5.68%	13.99%	49.7	35.6
1968	79.40%	0.90%	5.57%	14.13%	48.9	35.1
1969	78.65%	1.21%	5.37%	14.77%	50.2	36.0
1970	78.12%	1.60%	5.25%	15.03%	49.9	35.8
1971	77.54%	1.79%	4.89%	15.79%	50.1	35.9
1972	76.85%	4.03%	2.87%	16.25%	50.4	36.2
1973	77.63%	3.90%	2.58%	15.89%	50.3	36.0
1974	77.35%	3.62%	3.00%	16.03%	50.9	36.5
1975	76.95%	4.27%	3.66%	15.11%	51.4	36.9
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.

Malt use has declined by 4 percentage points, while unmalted corn use has increased by the same amount. Rice and maize use is down a bit, while sugar is pretty much unchanged.

Hop usage came as a bit of a surprise:

Hop usage in the UK 1955 - 1975
year	bulk barrels	hops( lbs)	hops lbs/  Imperial barrel	hops lbs/  US barrel
1955	24,324,623	24,384,192	1.00	0.72
1956	24,187,096	24,507,840	1.01	0.73
1957	24,839,755	24,092,768	0.97	0.70
1958	24,129,462	23,393,440	0.97	0.70
1959	25,023,044	24,196,144	0.97	0.69
1960	26,313,796	25,353,552	0.96	0.69
1961	27,600,860	26,276,432	0.95	0.68
1962	27,736,049	25,360,944	0.91	0.66
1963	27,942,561	25,375,280	0.91	0.65
1964	29,485,128	26,583,872	0.90	0.65
1965	29,579,855	26,479,488	0.90	0.64
1966	30,178,056	25,997,328	0.86	0.62
1967	30,751,420	24,840,816	0.81	0.58
1968	30,763,106	22,428,448	0.73	0.52
1969	32,211,837	23,674,672	0.73	0.53
1970	32,940,567	24,050,208	0.73	0.52
1971	34,360,000	22,041,824	0.64	0.46
1972	34,969,310	21,118,048	0.60	0.43
1973	35,338,345	20,558,160	0.58	0.42
1974	37,893,753	19,012,672	0.50	0.36
1975	38,238,657	16,686,768	0.44	0.31
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.

The percentage decline in the hopping rate is even than in the US. It seemed a bit strange to me. This table including hop products might explain it:

Hop and hop products usage in the UK 1955 - 1975
year	hops	preparations of hops	hop substitutes
1955	217,716	92	27
1956	218,820	110	42
1957	215,114	91	28
1958	208,870	102	24
1959	216,037	107	29
1960	226,371	111	24
1961	234,611	112	10
1962	226,437	180	17
1963	226,565	246	25
1964	237,356	474	37
1965	236,424	599	57
1966	232,119	623	165
1967	221,793	672	104
1968	200,254	732	113
1969	211,381		hop powder
1970	214,734	1,614	-
1971	196,802	5,098	945
1972	188,554	3,937	3,917
1973	183,555	4,744	5,610
1974	169,756	9,173	10,413
1975	148,989	13,799	14,527
Sources:
1954 - 1968: 1971 Brewers' Almanack, page 54
1969 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1973", pages 16 - 17.
1970 - 1975 "The Brewers' Society UK Statistical Handbook 1978", page 19.

There’s a big increase in the use of hop products. Unfortunately, I don’t know how to convert that into the equivalent quantity of hops.

I’ll finish with average OG in the UK:

Average OG in the UK 1955 - 1975
year	OG
1955	1037.13
1956	1037.22
1957	1037.42
1958	1037.48
1959	1037.52
1960	1037.25
1961	1037.41
1962	1037.70
1963	1037.70
1964	1037.66
1965	1037.67
1966	1037.63
1967	1037.46
1968	1037.36
1969	1037.14
1970	1036.90
1971	1036.90
1972	1036.90
1973	1037.00
1974	1037.10
1975	1037.30
Sources:
Brewers' Almanack 1962, p. 48
Statistical Handbook of the British Beer & Pub Association 2005, p. 7
Brewers' Almanack 1971, p. 45

Pretty dull, eh? The variation is tiny, with a low of 1036.9 and a high of 1037.7. In fact these two decades show the least change of any in the 20th century.

I would promise a third set of these numbers, but I’ll need to harvest the British ones. I’ve only got them up to 1978 at the moment.